AY 2014-2015 ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW SELF-STUDY TEMPLATE
Reporting School/College: St. John’s College
Program Reviewed: Spanish MA Q
Date Submitted to Department/Division Chair:
Overview and Program Review Summary: Please summarize this program’s mission and its relationship to the vision
and mission of St. John’s University, and the program’s School/College. Identify similar programs regionally and
nationally and distinguish this program from them. In addition, summarize your findings as they relate to (1) program
quality, (2) market growth potential, and (3) student learning. Also, summarize any significant changes, achievements
(by faculty and students and the program itself), and plans for the future. Finally, based on the information gleaned
from the data in the self-study, give an overall rating of the program’s Enrollment/Market Potential by categorizing it as
one of the following: (1) Enhance; (2) Maintain; (3) Reduce support, Phase out, Consolidate, or Discontinue.
(Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 1. The purpose of the program reflects and supports the strategic vision and mission of St. John’s
University, and the program’s School/College.
1a.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the Catholic, Vincentian, and
metropolitan identity of St. John’s University? www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
1b.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the University’s vision.
www.stjohns.edu/about/out-mission/vision-statement. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
1c.
What evidence can you provide that demonstrates that the program embodies the vision and mission of the
program’s School/College? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 1.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 1
STANDARD 2. The program attracts, retains, and graduates high quality students.
2a.
Undergraduate SAT and High School Average
2b.
Undergraduate 1st Year Retention Rate
2c.
Undergraduate 6 Year Graduation Rate
2d.
Graduate Standardized Test Scores
Fall
2005
Program
2006
2007
410/527
345/370
2008
2009
School/College
Average Rate
481/561
494/569
465/551
501/588
472/577
Regional
Comparison
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See below
National
Comparison
New Graduate
Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012
Ir Grev
Score
Spanish MA
old
330
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
Ir Grev
Score
395
Ir Grev
Score
530
Self-Study Template 2
New Graduate Students GRE
Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012
Ir Greq
Score
Spanish MA
old
Ir Greq
Score
660
Ir Greq
Score
580
610
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to
8/1/11 on a scale of 200-800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
Based on students with valid scores in BANNER - therefore n maybe small in some cases.
New Graduate Students GRE Verbal
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Grev Score
Graduate School Arts & Sci
old
Fall 2012
Ir Grev Score
491
Fall 2013
Ir Grev Score
500
new
Ir Grev Score
497
532
154
153
New Graduate Students GRE Quantitative
Mean Scores
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Ir Greq Score
Graduate School Arts & Sci
old
Fall 2012
Ir Greq Score
585
Fall 2013
Ir Greq Score
566
new
Ir Greq Score
593
604
149
150
As of August 1, 2011, ETS revised the GRE General Test with a new scoring scale. Prior to 8/1/11 on a scale of 200-800(old) and after 8/1/11 on a scale of 130-170(new)
GRE
Intended Graduate Major
Foreign Languages and
Literatures*
Test-Takers
2,361
Mean Score (Verbal)
155
Mean Score (Quantitative)
150
*For further information, please visit http://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide.pdf.
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 3
2e.
Please describe how the program compares with peer and aspirational institutions.
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2f.
If applicable, describe the program’s student performance over the past five years on licensure or professional
certification exams relative to regional and national standards. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
2g.
Number of majors and minors enrolled over the past five years. See table below.
Fall
Number of
Students
2005
Majors
2006
21
21
MAJORS
2h.
2008
19
16
0
0
19
16
Minors
Total
2007
SPA
2009
9
9
9
9
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MA
15
19
16
14
Number of degrees granted during the past five years. See table below.
Academic Year
Degrees
Granted
04/05
05/06
06/07
07/08
08/09
MA
1
7
12
10
5
SJC-GR
SPA
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
Spanish
MA
10/11
11/12
12/13
Degrees Conferred
Degrees Conferred
Degrees Conferred
7
8
4
Self-Study Template 4
Below is comparison degrees conferred data for local and national institutions based on data retrieved from the IPEDS
website. This is based on the Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) Code of 16-Foreign Languages, Literatures, and
Linguistics.
20092010
20102011
20112012
Master's
Local
194
191
248
National
3,755
3,727
3,827
1
Local institution include: Adelphi University, Columbia University, CUNY Queens College, Fordham University,
Hofstra University, Iona College, C.W. Post University, Manhattan College, New York University, Pace University,
Seton Hall University, Stony Brook University, and Wagner College.
Comments : Based on the data in 2g and 2h, how do these trends compare to institutional, regional and national
patterns? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
2i.
What mechanisms are in place to monitor students’ progress toward degree? And, to what extent is there a
collaborative effort to provide quality advising and support services to students? (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
2j.
If available, provide information on the success of graduates in this program as it relates to employment or
attending graduate school. (Suggested limit 1/4 page)
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 5
2k.
Please comment on the students’ competencies in the program. Support your response using data provided
below and any other data available. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 2.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 3. The program engages in ongoing systematic planning that is aligned with the University and
School/College planning, direction, and priorities.
3a.
How does your program’s strategic goal/objectives link to your School/College plan and the University’s strategic
plan? http://www.stjohns.edu/about/leadership/strategic-planning
3b.
What is the evidence of monitoring the external and internal environments, specifically what are the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the program? How were they identified? What actions have been taken
in response to these findings? What characteristics of the program suggest a competitive edge against other programs
regionally and nationally?
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 6
3c.
What is the current and future market demand for the program? Support your response using the data
provided below or any other internal or external sources to justify your response.
Change, 2010-20
Fastest Growing Occupations
Interpreters & Translators
Percent
Numeric
Occupations having the
largest numerical increase
in employment
42%
24,600
Interpreters & Translators
Change, 2010-20
Percent
Numeric
42%
24,600
Changes, 2010-20
Grow
Interpreters & Translators
Percent
Numeric
42%
24,600
*For more information please visit: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.toc.htm
Standard 3.
Additional comments if needed: (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 4. The program provides a high quality curriculum that emphasizes and assesses student learning and
engagement.
4a.
Please indicate how the program curriculum is in alignment with the following three items:
(Suggested limit 1/2 page for each of the three categories below)
1. Standards within the discipline
2. Curriculum integrity, coherence, academic internships, teaching excellence, teaching vibrancy, and study
abroad experiences.
3. The University Core competencies
4b.
The syllabi for the courses within this program incorporate the suggested elements of a syllabus – an example of
which can be found at the following St. John’s University Center for Teaching and Learning link. (Suggested limit 1/3
page) http://stjohns.campusguides.com/content.php?pid=71651&sid=984766
4c.
Describe the assessment model currently in place for the program and indicate the extent to which disciplinary
and core knowledge, competence, and values are met, as well as findings and action plans for improvement. For
reference, visit WeaveOnline – https://app.weaveonline.com//login.aspx; Digication – https://stjohns.digication.com
(Suggested limit 1/2 page)
4d.
What, if any, external validations, e.g. specialized accreditations, external awards, other validations of quality
has the program received? (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 7
Standard 4.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 5. The program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission and goals.
5a.
Below you will find the number of students enrolled as majors and minors in the program. Please complete the
table by adding the number of full-time faculty assigned to the program. Then calculate the student to full-time faculty
ratio.
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
# Majors/
FT Faculty
FT
PT
Total
Majors
7
14
21
FT
PT
5
Fall 2007
Total
14
FT
19
Minors
PT
5
Fall 2008
Total
11
16
0
Majors
& Minors
Combined
7
14
# of FTE
Students
(Majors &
Minors)
7.00
4.67
FT
PT
Fall 2009
Total
FT
PT
Total
3
6
9
4
5
9
0
21
5
14
19
5
11
16
3
6
9
4
5
9
11.67
5.00
4.67
9.67
5.00
3.67
8.67
3.00
2.00
5.00
4.00
1.67
5.67
# of FTE Faculty
assigned to the
program
0
0
0
0
0
FTE Student/
FTE Faculty
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
Majors
MAJORS
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
10
5
15
10
9
19
9
7
16
9
5
14
Self-Study Template 8
Fall 2010
Total
FTE MAJORS
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
F
P
Total
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
FTE
10
3
13
9
10
1.667 11.667
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
2.333 11.333
Fall 2012
9
1.667 10.667
Fall 2013
# of FTE faculty assigned
to the program
FTE Student/FTE Faculty
Ratio
Important Notes:
FTE Students = Number of FT Students + (number of PT Students/3)
FTE Faculty = Number of FT Faculty + (number of PT Faculty/3)
This methodology is used by STJ for all external reporting.
5b.
Below you will find the credit hours the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time faculty
(including administrators) and the total credit hours consumed by non-majors.
Credit Hours
Taught
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
1827
28%
1746
27%
1965
28%
2121
31%
2973
44%
PT Faculty
4638
72%
4815
73%
5004
72%
4707
69%
3861
56%
Total
6465
100%
6561
100%
6969
100%
6828
100%
6834
100%
FT Faculty
% consumed
by
NonMajors
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
94%
94%
93%
93%
92%
Self-Study Template 9
Credit Hrs Taught
Fall 2010
Fall 2011
Number
Fall 2012
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
2,496
39.8%
2,109
32.1%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
3,768
60.2%
4,464
67.9%
0.0%
Total
6,264
% Consumed by
Non-Majors
100%
5,820
Percent
Number
2,043
4,710
0.0%
6,573
92.9%
6,078
100%
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
30.3%
1,938
31.1%
69.7%
4,299
68.9%
0.0%
6,753
92.5%
6,297
0.0%
100%
6,237
100%
93.2%
5,889
94.4%
5c.
Below you will find the number of courses the department has delivered by full-time faculty and part-time
faculty (including administrators).
Courses
Taught
Fall 2005
#
Fall 2006
%
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
38
31%
41
29%
48
33%
57
44%
FT Faculty
39
34%
PT Faculty
77
66%
86
69%
99
71%
97
67%
74
56%
Total
116
100%
124
100%
140
100%
145
100%
131
100%
Courses Taught
Fall 2010
Number
Fall 2011
Percent
Number
Fall 2012
Percent
Number
Fall 2013
Percent
Number
Percent
F-T Faculty
45
38.5%
51
38.6%
40
30.8%
42
33.1%
P-T Faculty (inc
Admin)
72
61.5%
81
61.4%
90
69.2%
85
66.9%
0.0%
Total
117
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
100%
0.0%
132
100%
0.0%
130
100%
0.0%
127
100%
Self-Study Template 10
5d.
What is the representative nature of faculty in terms of demographics, tenure and diversity? (See departmental
information on next page). How well does this support the program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 11
Departmental Plan
2005
FT
2006
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
6
40%
13
34%
Female
9
60%
25
Total
15
100%
Black
0
Hispanic
FT
2007
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
19
5
36%
13
33%
66%
34
9
64%
27
38
100%
53
14
100%
0%
1
3%
1
0
4
27%
11
29%
15
Asian
0
0%
1
3%
White
11
73%
23
Unknown
0
0%
Total
15
100%
Tenured
11
Tenure-Track
FT
2008
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
18
6
38%
23
48%
68%
36
10
63%
25
40
100%
54
16
100%
0%
1
3%
1
0
4
29%
9
23%
13
1
0
0%
2
5%
61%
34
10
71%
24
2
5%
2
0
0%
38
100%
53
14
100%
73%
11
11
2
13%
2
Not Applicable
2
13%
Total
15
100%
FT
2009
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
29
6
38%
20
41%
52%
35
10
63%
29
48
100%
64
16
100%
0%
1
2%
1
0
4
25%
13
27%
17
2
0
0%
1
2%
60%
34
12
75%
27
4
10%
4
0
0%
40
100%
54
16
100%
79%
11
12
2
14%
2
2
1
7%
15
14
100%
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
26
6
38%
18
42%
24
59%
39
10
63%
25
58%
35
49
100%
65
16
100%
43
100
59
0%
2
4%
2
-
0%
1
2%
1
4
25%
13
27%
17
4
25%
10
23%
14
1
0
0%
1
2%
1
0
0%
1
2%
1
56%
39
12
75%
29
59%
41
12
75%
29
67%
41
6
13%
6
0
0%
4
8%
4
0
0%
2
5%
2
48
100%
64
16
100%
49
100%
65
16
100%
43
100%
59
75%
12
12
75%
12
13
81%
13
3
19%
3
3
19%
3
1
6%
1
1
1
6%
1
1
6%
1
2
13%
2
14
16
100%
16
16
100%
16
16
100%
16
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure Status
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 12
2010
FT
2011
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
Male
5
33%
15
39%
Female
10
67%
23
61%
Total
15
FT
2012
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
20
5
36%
18
43%
33
9
64%
24
57%
53
14
FT
2013
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
23
5
36%
20
43%
33
9
64%
26
57%
56
14
FT
PT
Total
#
%
#
%
25
5
33%
17
36%
22
35
10
67%
30
64%
40
60
15
Gender
38
42
46
47
62
Ethnicity
Black
0%
0%
0
0%
1
2%
1
0%
1
2%
1
0%
1
2%
1
Hispanic
5
33%
12
32%
17
5
36%
12
29%
17
5
36%
12
26%
17
5
33%
13
28%
18
Asian
1
7%
1
3%
2
1
7%
1
2%
2
1
7%
1
2%
2
1
7%
1
2%
2
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
23
61%
32
64%
35
67%
39
60%
31
66%
40
1
3%
0
0%
0
0
0%
0
1
2%
1
American
Indian/Alaskan Native
White
0%
9
60%
2 or More Races
0%
8
57%
27
0%
8
57%
31
9
Native
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
Unknown
Total
0%
15
1
38
3%
1
0%
53
14
1
42
2%
1
0%
56
14
1
46
2%
1
0%
60
15
13
47
62
Tenure Status
Tenured
12
80%
12
12
86%
12
12
86%
12
Tenure-Track
1
7%
1
1
7%
1
1
7%
1
Not Applicable
2
13%
2
1
7%
1
1
7%
1
2
Total
15
15
14
14
14
14
15
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
87%
13
0%
0
13%
2
15
Self-Study Template 13
5e.
What evidence exists that the program’s faculty have engaged in research and scholarship on teaching and/or
learning in the program’s field of study? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
5f.
What initiatives have been taken in the past five years to promote faculty development in support of the
program? (Suggested limit 1/2 page)
5g.
The table below shows the amount of external funding received by the department. If available, please provide
the dollar amount of externally funded research for full-time faculty supporting the program under review. (Program
dollar amounts are available through departmental records.)
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
04/05
05/06
15,000
25,000
06/07
07/08
08/09
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
10,000
Fiscal Year
External
Funding
09/10
10/11
11/12
12/13
$ Amount
Program
$ Amount
Department
69,544
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
69,544
69,544
158,996
Self-Study Template 14
5h.
Please comment on the table below that shows trends in overall course evaluation and instructional vibrancy for
your program (if available), your college and the university. (Suggested limit ½ page)
Overall Evaluation (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Instructional Vibrancy (Spring)
2011
2012
2013
Spanish (Q)
4.70
4.29
4.82
4.69
4.36
4.80
Saint John’s
College
4.23
4.26
4.19
4.37
4.40
4.40
Total Graduate
4.14
4.16
4.30
4.37
4.39
4.52
Note: Institutional Vibrancy is the average of the first 14 questions on the course evaluation, with questions pertaining
to course organization, communication, faculty-student interaction, and assignments/grading. All course evaluation
questions range from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
5i.
What percentage of full time faculty assigned to this program have terminal degrees or industry certifications
renewed within the past 2 years? Comment. (Suggested limit 1/3 page)
Standard 5.
Comments: Indicate to what extent the program has the faculty resources required to meet its mission
and goals. Include references from 5a – 5i. (Suggested limit 1 page)
Standard 5.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 6. The program has adequate resources to meet its goals and objectives. And, it is cost-effective.
6a.
Narrative/Supportive Technological Environment - Comment on classrooms and labs meeting industry-standards
for quality and availability of hardware, software, and peripherals; library space, holdings and services; science
laboratories, TV studios, art/computer graphic labs; etc. (Suggested limit 1 page)
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 15
6b.
Narrative/ Supportive Physical Environment - Comment on level of faculty and student satisfaction with HVAC;
faculty and student satisfaction with classroom lighting, crowdedness, and acoustics; flexible teaching environments,
and faculty offices, etc.. (Suggested limit 1 page)
6c.
To what extent has the University funded major capital projects, e.g., renovations, which are linked directly to
the program during the past five years? (Bulleted list)
6d.
If external data that describes the cost effectiveness of the program has been provided by your School/College
Dean, please comment on the program’s cost-effectiveness. (Suggest limit 1 page)
Standard 6.
Additional comments if needed. (Suggested limit 1 page)
STANDARD 7. Effective actions have been taken based on the findings of the last program review and plans have
been initiated for the future.
Comments: (Suggested limit 1page)
LAS_L&L_SPANISH_MA_Q
Self-Study Template 16